The thesis of Nelson’s 1990 essay about the “Venus” figurines of the upper Paleolithic era is that anthropology is itself recirculating unfair and poorly thought-out gender norms in its imposition of meaning onto the figurines. Her most important points are less about the Venus figures themselves, and more about the role of gender. Even within academia, she observes a trend involving the recirculation of imposing gender norms onto artifacts without any real evidence for it (Nelson 12). Nelson exposes the “hidden assumptions” of the field surrounding these figures, which include the idea that women’s bodies exist for one very specific purpose: “Underlying the description of the female figurines as erotic or reproductive is a masculinist construction
…show more content…
This book refers to “anatomical exaggeration” (Kleiner 18). It also acknowledges the controversy and potential range of meanings for these figures. However, the book nonetheless recirculates many of the same controversies that Nelson was clearly upset with. The book only depicts one image and seems to frame it as aligned with the view of the figures as evoking fertility and gender norms. Obviously, Gardner does not have the space or time in the book to acknowledge the controversy and describe some of the issues that Nelson described. However, reading this passage in conversation with the Nelson article seemed to confirm Nelson’s thesis and her argument. The Gardner book seemed to do exactly what Nelson’s complaints were, though it did focus more on the material and shapes than the potential meaning of the object. Rewriting this section, Nelson might say something like: The Venus of Willendorf is a particularly interesting relic from the Upper Paleolithic. The ways in which people see it show just as much about these viewers as they show the meaning of the object. Instead of imposing meaning on it, try to consider this image as a deconstructed object. The shapes are round ovals, circles, or rough spheres. The material consists of rounded
This book refers to “anatomical exaggeration” (Kleiner 18). It also acknowledges the controversy and potential range of meanings for these figures. However, the book nonetheless recirculates many of the same controversies that Nelson was clearly upset with. The book only depicts one image and seems to frame it as aligned with the view of the figures as evoking fertility and gender norms. Obviously, Gardner does not have the space or time in the book to acknowledge the controversy and describe some of the issues that Nelson described. However, reading this passage in conversation with the Nelson article seemed to confirm Nelson’s thesis and her argument. The Gardner book seemed to do exactly what Nelson’s complaints were, though it did focus more on the material and shapes than the potential meaning of the object. Rewriting this section, Nelson might say something like: The Venus of Willendorf is a particularly interesting relic from the Upper Paleolithic. The ways in which people see it show just as much about these viewers as they show the meaning of the object. Instead of imposing meaning on it, try to consider this image as a deconstructed object. The shapes are round ovals, circles, or rough spheres. The material consists of rounded